Towards a
future for public
employment
Association for Public Service Excellence
Centre for Local Economic Strategies
Institute of Local Government Studies
July 2007
1
About the organisations
Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE)
APSE (Association for Public Service Excellence) is a not for profit local government
body working with over 300 councils throughout the UK. Promoting excellence in
public services, APSE is the foremost specialist in local authority front line services,
hosting a network for front line service providers in areas such as waste and refuse
collection, parks and environmental services, leisure, school meals, cleaning, housing
and building maintenance.
Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES)
Established in 1986, the Centre for Local Economic Strategies is an independent thinkdoing organisation and network of subscribing organisations involved in regeneration
activities, local economic development and local governance. CLES combines policy
development, an information and briefing service, events and a consultancy arm.
CLES is unique; our network of subscribing organisations, consultancy clients and our
grounded experience of policy means we are well placed to represent practitioners
and develop ideas and policy that work on the ground.
Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV)
The Institute of Local Government Studies of the University of Birmingham is committed to enhancing democratic governance of local communities. It seeks to encourage
and support working across organisational boundaries within the public sector and
between it and the voluntary and private sectors. The department is a major centre for
research and for postgraduate programmes, both taught and research based. It also
runs a small number of undergraduate programmes. INLOGOV is a leading provider
of many continuing professional and management development programmes for
governance practitioners from both the UK and overseas and has numerous research
collaborative links with other universities and national education and training centres
globally.
About the authors
Mark Bramah is the Assistant Chief Executive of the Association for Public Service
Excellence. mbramah@apse.org.uk
Neil McInroy is the Chief Executive of the Centre for Local Economic Strategies.
neilmcinroy@cles.org.uk
Matthew Jackson is a Senior Policy Researcher at the Centre for Local Economic
Strategies. matthewjackson@cles.org.uk
Victoria Bradford is a Policy Consultant at the Centre for Local Economic Strategies.
victoriabradford@cles.org.uk
Steven Griggs is Lecturer in Public Policy at the Institute of Local Government
Studies. S.F.Griggs@bham.ac.uk
Towards a future for
public employment
Written and Published by :
Association for Public Service Excellence
Centre for Local Economic Strategies
Institute of Local Government Studies
June 2007
ISBN 978-0-9548349-3-7
4
Preface
This is the first report in a research programme designed to examine key contemporary issues in the delivery of public services.
We have been motivated to embark upon this programme of research by a sense of
frustration. This frustration is born from the shared belief that policy-makers and government are neglecting to acknowledge and explore in any detail the wider purpose
and benefits of public employment. The nature of public employment is largely taken
for granted in the UK when it is, in fact, of vital importance from both an economic and
a social perspective.
We believe that public employment has core values and benefits that are overlooked
to the detriment of effective service delivery and modernisation. It is our contention
that public employment, and more specifically direct public employment, provides a
unique and strategic means of ensuring that the wider public sector can respond to
citizens’ need in a flexible way; provide appropriate capacity to deliver local services
and empower local communities; and allow for effective co-ordination and alignment
of resources across the public services.
This report seeks to explore this wider purpose and reiterate the value of public employment in the contemporary policy context. In particular, it discusses the value of
public employment in providing effective leverage over local economies; in shaping
places; in managing costs and transactions; in sustaining democratic networks and
accountability and; in realising the potential of the local workforce.
Each of the research partners brings a unique perspective and set of skills to this project.
APSE, as the UK’s leading specialist in local authority front-line services, is conscious of
the need to examine not only the effective delivery of the services themselves, but
the wider impact of public employment in the provision of those services. CLES, as the
only UK specialist research and membership organisation focused on economic development and regeneration, is driven by a desire to develop policy ideas which ensure
the maximum contribution of local services to wider social and economic outcomes.
INLOGOV believes it is of vital importance to straddle good academic understanding
and practical relevance in the field of service delivery and democratic governance.
Collectively, from this service delivery, policy and research perspective, we want to renew and refresh the debate about the value of public employment. This is not because
we necessarily view public employment as a virtuous objective in its own right or because we seek to justify certain employment practices in the public sector. This work
is born out of a wish to acknowledge and explore the value of public employment
because it fulfils a more important strategic purpose for public bodies than is currently
recognised. We seek to redefine the role and purpose of public employment in this
context and provide a stimulus to progressive policy debate. This report is the first
contribution to that debate, which sets out our case. We are undertaking two pieces of
primary research, which seek to quantify the benefits of public employment, firstly in
economic and secondly in strategic policy-making‑ terms.
Paul O’Brien, Chief Executive, Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE)
Neil McInroy, Chief Executive, the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES)
Dr. Steven Griggs, Institute of Local Government Studies (Inlogov), the University of Birmingham
5
6
Contents
Executive summary
8
Introduction
11
The challenge to public employment
13
(a) The traditional benefits of public employment
13
(b) New public management and public value
13
(c) Questioning creeping orthodoxies 15
The benefits and value of public employment
19
(a) Effective leverage over local economies
19
(b) Shaping places and co-ordinating activity
20
(c) Managing costs and transactions
22
(d) Ensuring democratic accountability
23
(e) Developing the potential of the workforce
24
(f ) Emerging themes and issues
26
Towards a future for public employment
7
29
Executive summary
APSE has put together a research programme in partnership with CLES and INLOGOV
to critically examine some of the important themes emerging in relation to the future
role of local government and the wider public sector. The purpose of this report is to
consider some of the current issues about the nature and purpose of direct public
employment and to begin the process of setting this within a modern public service
context. Essentially, we wish to look at how to achieve greater public value in the delivery of public services and the contribution direct public employment can make to
that.
The challenge to public employment
Public employment has fulfilled both an economic and social purpose in this country
over many decades. But many of the traditional benefits have come under close scrutiny as a result of the fragmentation of the public sector as a whole and a prevailing
public policy orthodoxy that has, in recent years, eschewed any value that is inherent
in direct public employment itself.
The challenge to the traditional purpose of public employment and public administration has come from two schools of thought; New Public Management (NPM) and
Public Value Management (PVM).
NPM has advocated greater marketisation and consumerisation of public services
together with a drive for greater efficiency and improved performance through the
adoption of a range of private sector management techniques. More recently, the advocates of PVM have argued that the purpose of public interventions and service provision is to create wider ‘public value’ reflecting the collective preferences of citizens as
opposed to the individual preferences of consumers. PVM pursues a commitment to
public service ethos but does not see this as solely the domain of the public sector –
private sector organisations can promote a public sector ethos as well.
The public sector has, by and large, embraced much of this reforming agenda including the drive for greater efficiency and improved performance. Public services have
responded well to this drive. But there is still a need to articulate a future for direct
public employment that moves beyond the traditional benefits of protecting the
public interest and promoting social justice and the traditional criticisms of being producer dominated and centrally controlled. This is why we are putting forward a new
argument for the recognition of the value of public employment within the context of
public service modernisation.
There is, in our view, both a tradition and enduring contemporary value to public
employment that is inadequately represented in current policy discourse and current
considerations of what public employment actually means. We do not seek to argue
for a return to some mythical golden age of monolithic public provision and welfarism.
Instead, we wish to confidently assert the value of direct public employment, encourage those involved in it to set a high benchmark and challenge other sectors and
providers to meet this mark.
8
The benefit and value of public employment
The report sets out a range of benefits, which direct public employment can bring in
the contemporary context. Some of these benefits, but not all, are exclusive to public
sector employers. But there are cumulative benefits attached to public employment at
a strategic level to achieve wider public value in:
•
•
•
•
•
providing effective leverage over local economies;
in shaping the places where we live and work;
in managing costs and transactions;
in sustaining democratic networks and accountability and;
in realising the potential of the local workforce
There is a need to retain core capacity in this area if these wider tangible benefits are
to be fully realised.
Towards a future for public employment
The value of public employment can only be measured in terms of its contribution
to achieving wider public value and in responding to the rapidly changing technical,
economic and social environment in which the public sector now operates.
The report sets out a hypothesis about the value of public employment, which will
be explored through two further pieces of detailed primary research looking at the
value of public employment in economic and social terms. These pieces of research
will measure the impact of public employment on local economies particularly in relation to neighbourhoods and patterns of governance and accountability. This further
research will provide a better understanding of how local authorities in particular,
can contribute effectively as place-shapers and use all resources (direct, indirect and
induced) to secure the economic, social and environmental well being of a locality.
The report further sets out some issues for consideration in the form of recommendations to elected members, strategic managers and policy makers, procurement and
commissioning officers, local communities and external regulators.
9
10
Introduction
The value of public employment
Public employment is a term applied predominantly to those individually and collectively employed by the public sector. This ranges from those at the highest level of the
civil service, to local authority officers, to staff working for the National Health Service,
to those working in education and the police service. These are the individuals, organisations and bodies that develop, coordinate and deliver the majority of our public
services and do so with pride and increasingly to improved standards and enhanced
efficiencies.
We are, however, at a crossroads. Our understanding of public employment and how it
might contribute to the effective delivery of public services is increasingly being called
into question. In recent years, services have been ‘contracted out’ to large international
and national private sector firms and also to voluntary and community sector organisations. The association between public sector service delivery and public funding of
such services has been weakened, with emerging claims that services should remain
funded by the public sector but not necessarily delivered by the public sector. There
is a danger that many of the traditional values and benefits that public sector delivery
and public sector employment hold are being “lost” in the current policy developments
surrounding the transfer and commissioning of public services.
In this attempt to redefine public services as something that is paid for but not necessarily delivered by the state, the Government has sought to neutralise the debate
about employment through providing statutory protection to employees who are
transferred from the public sector to the private and third sectors. However, to date,
an articulation of any wider purpose to public employment other than in terms of
consumer choice has not been heard and there is little evidence that having a range
of alternative providers brings greater choice in practice to citizens and service users. Any concept of a “public service ethos” and how direct public employment might
serve a wider purpose in meeting “public value” in economic or social terms has been
drowned out.
This report seeks to explore that wider purpose and reiterate the value of public employment, in terms of its benefits to local economies, communities and service delivery.
It aims to contribute to renewed debate and challenge the prevailing orthodoxy over
the value of public employment by unpacking dominant policy theory and associated
contemporary trends within the public sector.
Our assertion is that the debate about public employment is often narrow and clouded
and that within the context of public service delivery, public employment has core
values and benefits that are often overlooked to the detriment of effective service delivery and modernisation more generally. As such, we confront a number of common
misconceptions about the nature of public employment.
The report thus endeavours to do two main things. Firstly, it explores current understandings about the role of public employment and management in delivering public
services. Secondly it examines how public employment can contribute positively to
achieving ‘public value’ and co-ordinate the delivery of public services to build sustainable communities, ensure excellent value for money and empower local communities.
We start by outlining the policy background to public employment.
11
12
The challenge to public employment
Much of current thinking on public sector management continues to be framed by the
underlying principles of New Public Management (NPM), although these principles are
increasingly challenged by the emergence of Public Value Management (PVM). This
emerging paradigm, which encourages public deliberation over how and whether
public services produce ”public value”, has been interpreted in some quarters as a
“corrective” to the recent consumerisation and marketisation of public services, which
has accompanied the move towards new public management.1 Here we discuss how
such thinking questions established claims made in support of public employment.
We first briefly consider the traditional benefits of public employment before going
on to argue that current thinking both in the shape of new public management and
public value management supports a shift towards a public service orientation, which
undervalues the potential contribution of public employment to the delivery of public
services. We conclude with a call for a questioning of this creeping orthodoxy.
(a) Traditional benefits of public employment
Pioneering work by the Webb’s at the turn of the 19th century2 on public employment
and direct employment, and subsequent work by local authorities who critiqued the
work of contractors3, served to influence the creation of the welfare state. In this, the
debate surrounding public employment went to the very heart of the values surrounding the local and central state. We believe that it continues to do so.
This early philosophy surrounding the benefits of direct public sector employment
centred around two arguments - that of the protection of the public interest and that
of the advancement of social justice. Firstly, direct employment was historically considered to be in the public interest because where the suppliers of services were only
contractors, there was judged to be both a considerable rise in price, and a decrease in
the standards achieved.
Secondly, in support of the drive towards social justice, public sector employees were
adjudged to be more likely to receive fair and appropriate wages for the trade concerned. More importantly, public sector provision was seen to prevent the commodification of a number of services that have, at their core, social objectives, for example
education and health care. In these cases direct public sector provision was considered
essential because of inherent social objectives, particularly the demand for equality
and continuity of provision, and the inability or lack of interest of the market in meeting these objectives.4
However, in recent years, it is these very twin pillars of public employment that have
been progressively contested as a result not least of the shift from public administration to new public management.
(b) New Public Management and Public Value
The many changes that have taken place within the public sector over the last twenty
years have come to be known as New Public Management or NPM. A four part classification of NPM was developed by Ferlie et al5 to include: the efficiency drive; downsizing and decentralisation; ‘in search of excellence’; and public service orientation. It
questioned the distinctiveness of the organisational practices and ethos of the public
sector, calling for the marketisation or consumerisation of public services and an end
to producer-led services (see Box 1)6. Current advocates of NPM believe that the past
1. Horner, L., Lehki, R. and Blaug, R. (2006)
Deliberative democracy and the role of public
managers, London: The Work Foundation.
2. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, more information
can be found at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/
LSEHistory/webbs.htm
3. Haward, H , The London County Council from
within, London, Chapman & Hall (1932)
Management in Action, Oxford: Oxford University
Press
4. Watson, S and Ward, M (1992) The impact on
local economies of directly delivered council
services, Manchester: CERN
6. Hood, C. (1991) ‘A Public Management for All
Seasons?’, Public Administration, Vol.69, No.1,
pp3-19.
5. Ferlie, E. et al. (1996) The New Public
13
distinctiveness of public employment in terms of high levels of job security or even
“jobs for life” has disappeared over the past two decades, specifically because reform
of the public sector has seen some functions moved into the private sphere .
As many services have come under pressure to become more efficient and effective
(particularly as a result of the 2004 Gershon Review) while maintaining the volume and
quality of services supplied to the public, we have indeed witnessed the introduction
of various ‘private sector’ management techniques namely, a shift from process driven
approaches to managing for performance. This has resulted in the adoption of a range
of new approaches to management, budgeting, personnel and institutional structures
in pursuit of improved performance. The focus on performance has also motivated
changes to public sector employment such as the introduction of performance-related
pay.7 It is worth noting in particular that many local authorities and their front-line
services have implemented modern management practices and these are effectively
embedded in their organisational culture. The achievement of challenging Gershon
efficiency targets and Comprehensive Performance Assessment improvements bears
witness to such developments.
Box 1. The common critique of public employment
The Public sector diminishes the effectiveness of
the private sector
Public services are alleged to be parasitic upon the wealth
created by the private sector, and to impose too heavy a
burden on it. The ‘crowding out’ proposition argued that
the growth of public expenditure in the post-war period
absorbed investment, which would otherwise have gone
into ‘productive’ use in the private sector.
The Public sector is isolated from market disciplines and is overly controlled from a central
level
so-called “subsidy culture” in the public sector ‘featherbeds’
inefficient activity and inhibits enterprise. On the one hand,
public services tend towards inefficiency and poor quality
because they are controlled by public monopolies. On the
other hand, they also create dependency among a stratum
of people passively reliant on public provision. Importantly,
the public sector also allows political involvement into the
delivery of public services with Ministers and Departments
driving activity from a central level.
The Public Sector is producer orientated
The relative imperviousness of the public sector to the
disciplines of the market, it is claimed, interferes with the
effective operation of price mechanisms and competition
in the marketplace. It places undesirable constraints on
the workings of the whole economy, over wages particularly but more generally by protecting large sections of the
workforce from the full implications of their behaviour. The
Public services have been operated more in the interests of
their producers than their consumers. The customers/consumers of public services should have greater choice and
voice in the provision of services, including choice between
a range of providers. Public choice theory has been critical
of vested, often professional, interests within the public
sector, and even of representative democracy itself, on the
grounds that these have stood in the way of accountability
to, and choice for, consumers of public services.8
However, alongside such developments, both the strategic case for the public sector as
an employer, and the managerial practices associated with public employment, have
come under sustained challenge. The public sector is increasingly seen as a provider
who must make its own business case and compete against other private, community
or voluntary sector providers to deliver services. Indeed, despite its interpretation as
a ‘corrective’ to new public management, even the contemporary thinking around
public services and the production of public value9 does not view public sector providers as exercising a monopoly over a public service ethos that is committed to public
accountability, universal access, responsible employment practices and community
well-being. Instead, it views practices within the public domain as quite distinct from
those that govern the private or commercial sector, but suggests that private organisations as well as voluntary and community organisations can adopt or share the values
and ways of working inherent in an ethos of public service.
7. Brignall S. & Modell S. (2000) An institutional
perspective on performance measurement and
management in the ‘new’ public sector, Oxford:
Academic Press, Management Accounting
Research.,Volume 11, Number 3, September 2000 ,
pp. 281-306(26)
8. Geddes and Wahlberg (1996) The value of public
employment for the Association of Direct Labour
Organisations, ADLO
9. Moore, M. (1995) Creating Public Value,
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; Kelly, G.,
14
Mulgan, G. & Muers, S. (2002) Creating Public Value.
An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform,
London: Strategy Unit, the Cabinet Office; Stoker, G.
(2006) ‘Public Value Management. A New Narrative
for Networked Governance?’, American Review of
Public Administration, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 41-57.
In the production of public value, public policy makers, it is argued, should not therefore overly concern themselves with whether services are produced or delivered in the
public, private or voluntary and community sectors. They should focus upon the quality of services produced and whether services respond to the demands of their service
users. Such judgments are to emerge through a dialogue between politicians, public
officials and wider stakeholders about the social and economic benefits of public services. Within this context, the key challenges for the public manager becomes those of
network management or the building and maintenance of networks of provision. On
the one hand, public managers will seek to build service delivery coalitions of public,
private and non-profit organisations. On the other hand, they will facilitate the process
of collective deliberation and reflection upon public value creation and the particular
value attached to public service outcomes across localities.
Such public value management emphasises trust, accountability and the collective
preferences of citizens as opposed to the individual preferences of consumers and
the marketisation of public services.10 It does not divorce politics from the delivery of
public services, but views it as a key mechanism for social coordination; a mechanism,
which ‘breathes life into the whole process’.11
However, this recognition of the importance of political and collective dialogue over
the nature of public service delivery sits alongside continued support for a shift from
a public sector ethos to a public service orientation. Competition and contestability of
public service provision have thus become a “modern orthodoxy”; an accepted wisdom for policy makers and service providers alike in which competition allegedly fuels
greater efficiency, higher quality of service, a clearer focus on customers and better
value for money.
NPM has largely sought to provide academic weight and intellectual substance to the
drive towards efficiency and downsizing as successive governments progressively
move functions from the public sector and into the private sector. Similarly, albeit
more subtly, “public value” has again attempted to provide weight and deflect debates
surrounding the corrosive effects of the market on public services.
While this view may constitute the prevailing orthodoxy, in this report we are seeking
to challenge some of the key assumptions inherent in this thinking and show how
public employment contributes positively to achieving “public value”.
(c) Questioning creeping orthodoxies
The public sector, as we have suggested above, has shown itself to be receptive to the
need for efficiency gains, improved service delivery and greater overall responsiveness
to service users. We have seen the development of new approaches including the development of call centres, on-line services, and one-stop shops (NHS Direct being the
obvious example), e-government targets for using information technology and the
internet for government-citizen, government-business and cross-government interactions. All of this has been embraced, but nevertheless has been a challenge for those
working in the public sector.
This has important implications in terms of public employment. For instance, in providing outreach services, it may be cheaper for local authorities to deal with issues via
video link or telephone interview rather than by a direct visit, or, similarly, employers’
bodies may have to redraw conditions of service for groups such as teachers who are
already delivering distance learning over the web. The personalisation of services and
the commitment from government to ensure that many public services are available
24 hours a day, seven days a week, will require a much more flexible resource base in
terms of the people, technology and workspace.
10. Horner, L., Lehki, R. and Blaug, R. (2006)
Deliberative democracy and the role of public
managers, London: The Work Foundation; Blaug, R.,
Horner, L & Lehki, L.R. (2006) Public value, politics
and public management, London: The Work
Foundation.
11. Stoker, G. (2006) Public Value Management.
15
A New Narrative for Networked Governance?
American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 36,
No. 1, pp. 41-57.
Flexibility has become the byword for all organisations as they attempt to find ways
to respond more quickly to an increasingly dynamic business environment.12 The
modernisation agenda13 has placed new demands on public services for joined-up
government, evidence based policy, best value, and public involvement, interacting with managerialism, efficiency, quality and consumerism, which were dominant
themes during the previous Conservative administration (1979-1997).14 The 2006
Local Government White Paper went as far as to identify the personalisation of services
as the biggest challenge facing local authorities in the 21st century.15
However, there is a danger to such flexible service delivery and the production of
public value when there is no level playing field or clearly defined roles between the
different sectors engaged in the delivery of public services.16 And, in current orthodox
thinking, there is a risk that particular common criticisms of public employment are
beginning to shape our understanding of the strategic advantages of public provision.
‘Pragmatism’ or ‘contestability’ can thus be translated through some narratives as a
by-word for outsourcing services to the private or community or voluntary sectors.
New orthodoxies about the value of public employment are thus established, as the
political origins of such arguments are lost.
It is our assertion that this orthodoxy, dominant political discourse and established
criticisms of public employment, are shallow in the extent to which they do not seek
to reassert the values of public employment and, as such, gloss over some important
and enduring benefits. As the previous discussion would indicate, the traditional way
we think about public employment is starting to break apart. However, our contention
is that we are in danger of slipping into a situation where we lose much of the benefit
from direct public employment, as the argument and a new orthodoxy takes hold.
As the deliverers of public services become more diverse and as a result of what we
would call public employment becomes more difficult to capture, we need in turn to
look at the enduring and deep values of public sector employment and its purpose.
To work within the public sector is a fundamentally important task and provides the
glue that holds social networks and builds sustainability and common purpose. As
the diversity of public service delivery mechanisms increases, we want better services,
but it would be folly to lose the historic and enduring values attached to public sector
delivery and employment at the same time.
The task of making public services better is, in our view, pointless if we cannot place
a set of values upon what that public sector employment means for all deliverers of
public services. This heritage and the enduring values are inadequately supported by
existing managerialism and reconsiderations of what public employment means. We
seek to question the new orthodoxy with an aim of arresting the spoiling and deterioration of the values which public employment uniquely embody.
12. Gibson V. & Luck R. (2004) Flexible Working
in Central Government: leveraging the benefits
– Study of Central Civil Government – Flexible
Working Practice, Norwich: Office of Government
Commerce
14. McLaughlin, Osborne & Ferlie (2002) New Public
Management: Current Trends & Future Prospects,
London: Routledge; Newman J. (2001) Modernising
Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society,
London: Sage
13. Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising
Government, London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office
15. Department for Communities and Local
Government (2006) Strong and prosperous
16
communities. The Local Government White Paper,
Cm6939-1, DCLG: London, p. 25.
16. Sturgees G. (2006) A fair field and no favours –
competitive neutrality in UK public service markets,
London: Confederation of Business Industry
In this we are not arguing for a return to some mythical golden age of monolithic public provision and welfarism, instead we merely wish to confidently assert the benefits
of public employment and let other sectors and providers meet this mark. In the next
chapter we wish to start to address this aim by outlining a number of benefits, derived
from direct public sector employment, which are reaped by individual citizens and the
wider community (for an initial summary, see Box 2).
Box 2. Public value and the purpose of direct public employment
Direct public employment can fulfil a significant role in
creating ‘public value’ and in ensuring that the public sector can achieve wider strategic ambitions and goals. It does
this in a number of ways:
Value to the local economy – Because the public sector is
a large and diverse employer within local economies, there
is a great deal of leverage to be gained by utilising public
employment resources to drive and influence the development and growth of the local economy.
Value in shaping places – The importance of people
and place is recognised in all contemporary public policy
discourse. Direct public employment is one means of contributing effectively to building community cohesion and
addressing quality of life issues.
Value in managing costs and transactions – Direct
public employment avoids the significant costs of procure-
ment and the associated transaction costs of contract
management. It further affords public bodies the ability to
achieve efficiencies and manage scarce resources without
being locked into long-term contracts subject to expensive
variations.
Value in sustaining democratic networks and accountability – Direct public employment is essential to wider
democratic purposes and provides a means of ensuring
accountability to elected representatives and wider communities rather than being arbitrated through market
mechanisms.
Value in realising the potential of the local workforce –
Direct public employment can contribute to meeting the
training and skills requirements of local communities and
effectively addressing skills shortages.
17
18
The benefits and value of public
employment
Current debates surrounding the provision of public services are very much focused
upon the delivery of better, more efficient and more responsive public services, which
meet the needs of the people and communities they seek to serve. Indeed, there is
much debate about how best to achieve this. But within this, as we have discussed
above, the rhetoric is largely focused on the private and third sectors, while the benefits brought by direct public employment are sometimes overlooked.
The benefits we cover include, but are not limited to, the following themes:
(a) Effective leverage over local economies
(b) Shaping places and co-ordinating activity
(c) Managing costs and transactions
(d) Ensuring democratic accountability
(e) Developing the potential of the workforce
The purpose of this chapter is to be reflective and considered as to the value and
benefits of public sector employment. It is not supposed to be a definitive account
of public employment value, but it seeks to provide those working across sectors and
directly in the sector with a guide to some of the reasons why public employment is
and should remain core to the delivery of public services.
(a) Effective leverage over local economies
The quality and context of a place, area, town, city or authority is determined by many
differing and inter-related factors. Although it is shaped by considerations such as
infrastructure, demographics, cohesion, and geography, the biggest single shaper of a
place, successful or otherwise, is how the local economy operates and how local people interact with and take advantage of local economic benefits. The public sector has
a strong participative, representative and democratic influence on local economies
and local economic development. Working for a public sector body as a public sector
employee not only has a string of benefits personally and socially, but it also has wider
direct or indirect influence as a catalyst for local economic growth and ultimately for
the production of public value.
The public sector is often the largest employer within particular local economies, ensuring that the size of the public sector and the resources available through direct
employment makes a significant contribution to the economy of a local area. In many
places, public sector bodies are the largest employers of people from both within
and outside of their geographical boundaries. Caerphilly County Borough Council for
example, is the 5th largest local authority in Wales and employs around 9,000 people
making it the largest employer in the area and 10th largest in Wales.
Example: Cumulative employment impact
NHS in Greater Manchester
The NHS is one of the largest employers in Greater
Manchester. It is also one of the largest purchasers and
commissioners in Greater Manchester, which means it has
strong influence over local employment and other economic supply chains. The NHS also acts as a significant lever
in reducing not only health but also economic inequalities
19
and in supporting regeneration. Many NHS organisations
in Greater Manchester are located in deprived neighbourhoods where unemployment and poverty levels are high
and where residents live in conditions that make them vulnerable to mental and physical illness. Throughout Greater
Manchester, in acute hospital trusts, primary and community care services, policies for employing local people are
being developed with success.
The concentration of public employers is very important in many areas – in particular
where the public sector is the local economy. The supply, sustainability and range of
public sector employment have been particularly important in areas that have suffered greatest from industrial or economic restructuring. Areas with an industrial heritage such as Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow have reinvented themselves through
strong public sector leadership and employment practices. But, equally, outside urban
areas , in otherwise underdeveloped economies the public sector is a significant employer, both as regards concentration of employment and as the overall number of all
jobs .
Whatever the size of the economy, the impact of direct public employment in terms of
local spend is significant. Money flows do not leak out of the local economy in terms
of profits and dividends, nor is employment relocated to suit the commercial and business needs of private companies, but continues to benefit the localities to which the
activity relates. By creating and sustaining local money flows, public sector spend can
have a multiplier effect on the local economy.
It is often the case that private companies operate not only in one particular locality
delivering public services, but also as a regional or national centre for other contracts.
The benefit in terms of employment in one area is to the detriment of other local economies from which that employment has been displaced . Retention of direct public
employment in such circumstances allows the public sector to maximise the benefits
to a locality rather than having services delivered from other geographic locations,
where the employment impact has no direct benefit to the host local economy.
(b) Shaping places and co-ordinating activity17
Direct employment of public sector workers has consequences for the resources local
authorities and other public sector bodies have available to shape local communities and co-ordinate the delivery of strategic outcomes. Whilst the 1980s and early
1990s saw diminished trust placed on local authorities and other public sector bodies
to deliver economic development and regeneration projects, we have witnessed in
recent years a degree of decentralisation and a shifting policy agenda towards community leadership and well-being. Through the introduction of Regional Development
Agencies, Local Area Agreements and Sustainable Community Strategies, as well as
the re-emphasis placed on public sector bodies such as English Partnerships, and the
host of special initiatives such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund; there is now a
focus placed on public sector workers, often in partnership, shaping local economic
development, local economic growth and ultimately local economies. Public employment facilitates such a place-shaping role by local public sector bodies, enhancing
their strategic capacity and direct control over local services rather than investing
authority in the ‘arms-length’ place-shapers that are the private and voluntary and
community sectors.
Indeed, the public sector is directly linked to local neighbourhoods and communities
through service provision and networks of public sector workers. This localised focus
Example: Helping to shape the economic
development of local communities
New Horizons in East Riding of Yorkshire
Local authority workers in the East Riding of Yorkshire
directly shape local economic development through a
Beacon Status business support and advice service. The
‘New Horizons’ business support service operates out of
17. Place-Shaping is a key consideration of the
Lyons Review. Lyons, Sir Michael (2007) Lyons
neighbourhood level business centres and aims to provide
support provision for embryonic, fledgling microbusinesses
and bridge the gap between towns in the East Riding. The
council run support centres act as ‘hubs’ of business support and have led to significant increases in business startups and survivability. The business service team adopts a
cross-departmental approach to tackling wider economic
development issues.
Inquiry into Local Government, London: HM
Treasury
20
enables public sector workers to be close to the communities they serve and have the
opportunity to directly contribute to activities that will shape, change and improve
livelihoods. More importantly, the continuity of service provision, and the building up
of local knowledge that feeds into service provision (and which is offered by networks
of public sector workers on the ground), are a vital component of the provision of quality public services. Indirect or contracted out public services make this informationgathering and co-ordination more difficult .18
Example: Area based regeneration
Liverpool Rope Walks
Identified by English Partnerships in the mid-1990s as a
target area for regeneration, Liverpool Rope Walks is a
compact and densely developed area adjacent to the commercial heart of the city centre. The area has been through
a series of public realm improvements which has created a
coherent, high quality network of streets and public spaces
with a strong local identity. Strong cross public sector involvement has also helped to stimulate inward investment
with numerous private conversion and new build residential and commercial developments bringing activity to a
previously neglected part of the city.
Public sector workers make an effective contribution to the quality of the locality in
terms of producing cleaner, safer, greener places to live. This is a key factor in influencing inward investment decisions. Many such decisions are influenced by the quality
and cost effectiveness of local public services from schools and parks to hospitals and
the public transport infrastructure, as much as by other local market conditions. The
ability through local area based regeneration to create sustainable communities is a
significant factor in attracting external investment.
Direct public employment therefore has the potential to integrate service delivery
with strategic action across local areas. It operates as a social ‘WD-40’19 or ‘lubricant’
that unlocks barriers to collaboration across networks and eases the dissemination
of good practice. It aids clustering and the integration of teams as it can facilitate the
pooling of resources through common terms of employment and lines of accountability, offer goal congruence through appeals to public service ethos, and militate
against the potential clashes over the profit motivation. In contrast, competition and
the fragmentation of contracts can potentially undermine the network formation
which supports effective service delivery.20
Example: Effective co-ordination
Harlow Good Citizens Programme
Harlow District Council’s Good Citizens Programme was
developed in response to a clear message from the community in Harlow – it wanted the council and its partners
to do something at a local level about anti-social behaviour and environmental crime. Many new projects were
developed, but the most important ones were those that
involved working with the local community to identify
important issues and to work together to address them.
Three initiatives have been particularly successful at
18. Whitfield, D. (2006) Modernisation by
Marketisation: how the commissioning, choice,
competition and contestability agenda threatened
public services – the lessons for Europe, London:
Spokesman Brooks
encouraging active citizenship. The Together initiative
involved engaging with local people to identify particular
hotspots in neighbourhoods where there was a need for
an intensive clean up campaign. The Street Scene Champs
Project recruits youngsters and trains them to be able to
identify environmental crime and report it to the council.
It also encourages them to take part in one-off activities
such as bulb-planting, stream clearing and litter picking.
The Citizenship Project works with young people who have
been identified as starting to exhibit anti-social behaviour,
making them aware of the consequences of such behaviour for themselves and for other people .
19. This draws upon Putnam’s description of
bridging social capital as the ‘WD-40’ of social
networks.
20. Strategy Unit (2006) The UK’s Approach to
21
Public Service Reform, London: Cabinet Office.
The development of sustainable communities, requires a joined up, holistic approach
to community planning and joint working across departments, directorates and
professions. The direct employment of architects, surveyors and engineers as well
as planners, health workers, educationalists and community development workers,
can ensure support for building truly sustainable communities. Direct employment
of professionals and key workers enables the development of communities in which:
public transport is integrated; buildings are well designed; there is access to high quality public space; cycling and walking routes are well designed and developed; there
is access to health and education services and the communities that live in them are
consulted and engaged in shaping their neighbourhoods.
Indeed, the Sustainable Communities agenda seeks to develop places where people
want to live, and work now and in the future. Cohesion and equality in employment
are crucial to the development of sustainable workforces and sustainable places. The
public sector ethos and new legislation around equality with regard to age, race, disability, gender and sexuality ensures that public sector employees are treated fairly and
equally in recruitment, retention and retirement terms. It also ensures that in terms of
equality of access to public provision this applies to citizens and service users.
Indirect or contract-based public service delivery is more likely to result in a return to
the ‘silos’ that the modernisation agenda is supposed to be eliminating. This is because
improving performance and delivery of services requires five key elements to be delivered in unison:
• engaging and motivating staff;
• meeting service user’s needs;
• promoting creativity and innovation;
• keeping stakeholders involved and informed, and;
• increasing shareholder (i.e. stakeholder) value.
When these elements are managed in isolation or independently, performance is impaired.21 The public sector in localities is often also directly responsible for achieving
centrally determined targets, meaning that the sector and their employees should
have more control over, and influence on, public services than others.
(c) Managing costs and transactions
The public sector can deliver high quality services because of its ability to respond in
a flexible and responsive way to local needs without the necessity to vary potentially
expensive contractual arrangements. Public sector delivery of services has often been
centred around responsiveness to local need, demand and ultimately the wishes of
the electorate.
Services can be delivered at a higher quality and more cost effectively if they are
linked to associated services, for example, ‘street scene’ which brings together a range
of locally based services such as street cleansing, the maintenance of open spaces,
highways and street lighting, enforcement and education programmes. This type of
service integration at a neighbourhood level is more easily achieved through direct
employment by the public sector rather than through contractual routes.
Example: Effective local services
Wardens in Gateshead
Gateshead Council established a Neighbourhood Warden
Programme in 2004 to provide a semi-official presence in
residential areas and town centres to foster a sense of wellbeing and social inclusion and to reduce crime and the fear
of crime. The wardens are directly employed by the council
and have resulted in a 14.7% reduction in crime within
Gateshead in 2005, with 3274 fewer offences recorded.
21. Hutton, W. (2003), ‘Managing them in isolation
impairs performance’ in Financial Times, London
22
Direct employment is also more efficient because there is no procurement and contracting process, to take up time, and no requirement for public sector employees
to manage that process. There is a greater potential for public sector bodies to pool
resources and to deliver shared services thereby achieving economies of scale and
meeting Gershon efficiencies using existing statutory powers. Using a procurement
exercise to seek a private sector solution has often been shown to be more costly in
the long term and involves significant procurement costs up front.
Direct provision and direct employment is often cheaper than alternatives when a
full costing is carried out. There are also no contract costs, or costs associated with
the contract management process. Support services, when performed in house and
particularly when shared between several departments or directorates, can also offer
savings through economies of scale.
Transaction costs, as studies of CCT and PFI show, are not as efficient in the private
sector as public sector delivery. Similarly, there appears to be insufficient flexibility
once contracts have been awarded. An example of this lack of flexibility can be found
in education catering where following the recent requirements by government to set
higher standards of nutritional value in school meals, many local authorities with private sector caterers have found that existing contracts do not permit changes without
expensive variations leaving many schools counting the cost of contracting out school
meal services.
(d) Ensuring democratic accountability
‘Good governance’ dictates that the public must have the capacity to hold public officials to account for their actions and decisions. The effective exercise of such public
scrutiny requires public organisations to have clear and open procedures for public
access, internal governance, member conduct and external accountability, with the
potential of the public to revoke the mandate of decision-makers under certain circumstances.22 The contracting out of public services to large corporations increases
the gap between the government and voters in democratic and service participation
and provision terms.
Public employment offers clear lines of accountability and responsibility for the delivery of public services. This ensures that the public has a means of redress where
they are dissatisfied with services. Public employment can reduce blame-avoidance
for poor services across networks of providers from the public and private and not-forprofit sectors. The apportioning of blame is clarified and public officials are often the
only members of partnerships to have a democratic mandate: they are the only service
providers that can be held directly to account by the local electorate.
Public sector bodies have a track record of engaging service users and community representatives in meaningful and sustained participation, designed to influence policy
and service provision. At the heart of the creation of public value lies the collaborative
dialogue of citizens, politicians and public managers. Public managers facilitate a continuous process of deliberation and dialogue with the public that enables the determination of service delivery goals and how best to achieve them.23 Indeed, this dialogue
with the ‘authorising environment’ is neither a one-off event nor a process confined to
the evaluation or appraisal of services delivered to the public. It is an on-going series
of dialogues which offers a ”distinctive kind of value created through public funding
that requires public managers to interact with the public to design, plan, provide and
evaluate service provision to ensure that services are responsive to citizens’ needs”. 24
Through facilitating such dialogue, public employment allows not simply the holding
of public managers to account, but also the ‘taking into account’ the ‘voice’ of citizens
22. Skelcher, C., Mathur, N. and Smith, M. (2004)
Effective Partnership and Good Governance:
Lessons for Policy and Practice, Birmingham:
School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham.
23. Horner, L., Lekhi, R. and Blaug, R. (2006)
Deliberative Democracy and the Role of Public
Managers, London: The Work Foundation.
23
24. Horner, L., Lekhi, R. and Blaug, R. (2006)
Deliberative Democracy and the Role of Public
Managers, London: The Work Foundation.
in the design and delivery of services. This connection with the public further addresses the potential democratic deficit of new public management whilst enhancing
the legitimacy of service delivery. Accountability is not simply driven by choice and
individual preferences, but equally by choice and the aggregation of collective preferences across a locality.
In fact, in his discussion of managerialism in the public sector, du Gay argues that
when public bureaucracy is portrayed as an inefficient form of organisation, it is often
“without due regard to its ethico-political role in contemporary liberal democracies.” 25
The accountability of bureaucracy, both hierarchically and to elected officials, may well
be, in his words, “crucial to the securing of effective parliamentary democracy.” 26
(e) Developing the potential of the workforce
In recent years, employment across both the public and private sector has increased.
However, the annual percentage growth in public sector employment has been
stronger than that for the private sector since 2000.27 For example, between June 2004
and June 2005 public sector employment increased by 95,000 (1.7%) compared with
private sector growth of 216,000 (1%).28 According to figures from National Statistics
Online29 the public sector employs more women than the private sector and offers
more part-time work with around 30% of public sector workers working part-time
compared with 24% of private sector workers in 2004.
With the skills gap widening in the UK by international comparisons, the public sector is in a strong position through its budgets for skills development and track record
in training its own employees to improve the skills of the wider local workforce. This
can bring a range of local economic and social benefits as well as improving service
performance.
A particular example of this is the construction industry, where public sector bodies
and particularly local authorities are responding to increasing skills shortages with a
range of recruitment investment measures. A recent survey by APSE indicated that a
growing number of local authorities (28%) are now entering into direct partnerships
with local secondary schools to encourage and train upcoming school leavers for a
career in construction. They are also carrying out a range of activities aimed at raising
the image of the construction industry and marketing the industry to women, and the
black and minority ethnic community. The pioneering work of local authorities such as
Leicester and Glasgow in training apprentices, shows what can be achieved by strong
and committed training activities in these areas.
The public also sector offers a variety of training, apprenticeship and employment opportunities for those people who most need support to engage with the labour market, including the long-term unemployed, those receiving Incapacity Benefit or other
sickness related benefits and those with few or no qualifications. The Government has
a commitment to 80% employment. In recent work commissioned by Department of
Work and Pensions30 , it was highlighted that this aspiration is a stretching target. But
Example: Improving basic skills of the workforce
Learning in Barking & Dagenham
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham developed the
Fritzlands Learning Centre as a multi-use class room providing basic literacy and numeracy skills, computer skills
and other non-vocational training for staff, mainly street
25.Du Gay, P. (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy,
London: Sage, pp.145-146
26. Du Gay, P. (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy,
London: Sage, p.146
27. Hicks S. (Dec 2005) Trends in public sector
cleaning and refuse employees. The centre was introduced
to tackle the low rate of adult literacy and numeracy in the
borough, whilst boosting staff morale and improving productivity in the workplace. The knock-on benefits of this
have been that resident satisfaction with levels of street
cleanliness have also improved significantly.
Employment, London: Office for National Statistics
28. Hicks S. (Dec 2005) Trends in public sector
Employment, London: Office for National Statistics
29. National Statistics Online:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk
24
30. Freud, D (2007) Reducing dependency,
increasing opportunity: options for the future
of Welfare to work, Presentation to CLG/DWP
worklessness conference, Manchester April 2007.
the Freud report does highlight the Government’s commitment and comments that
”far from being reluctant to engage [with the most disadvantaged], the Government
could on this evidence [of the importance of employment] be accused of dereliction if
it were to fail to (meet its targets).”
However to achieve this target, evidence to date would suggest that private sector
employment or indeed third sector employment are unlikely to do this on their own.
Even significant economic growth is unlikely to achieve it as the stock of incapacity
benefits, as demonstrated by Professor Ivan Turok’s work in Glasgow has shown, is
largely static.31 It would appear therefore that the public sector and public sector employment are key aspects to achieving this target.
Direct public sector employment maintains substantive equality and diversity practices
to ensure that all groups within society have access to employment and advancement
opportunities.32 The range of employment opportunities presented by the public sector – from landscaping to roadwork to administration activities – mean that there are
opportunities for local people, across a range of skill levels and competencies.
Example: Workplace based training initiatives
‘Equip’ Positive Action Training Scheme in
Rotherham
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s
Strategic Human Resources Unit recruited 11 people
from local Black and Minority Ethnic Communities
(BME) on to their ‘Equip’ Positive Action Training
Scheme.
The scheme was developed with
Rotherham Ethnic Minority Alliance (REMA) and
supported by the council’s BME Workers’ Network.
It offers workplace-based training and will help
overcome barriers faced by people from BME communities in getting employment. Trainees gain
job-specific learning with the support of mentors
from within the workforce. Although employment
cannot be guaranteed at the end of the training
placement, the trainees are encouraged to apply
for jobs during the project and given support in
completing applications and advice on how to
perform well at interview. The whole process enables the individuals to gain greater understanding
of the working environment in general and specific
career areas.
The public sector has strong links and partnerships with a range of other public sector
as well as private and third sector organisations, which offers opportunities for secondment, training and skills development. This predominantly occurs around three core
areas and for three reasons:
1. Public sector employees move from one public sector department or body
to another – this allows public sector employees to learn from one another,
and to foster multidimensional skills and knowledge.
2. Public sector employees work across directorates, departments and agencies – this via secondment schemes enables public sector workers to access
new skills and learn and transfer new and existing skills.
3. Public sector employees access opportunities for joint working and partnership – working on shared agendas with other public sector bodies thorough
Local Strategic Partnerships or through employment by a multi-faceted body
such as an Adult Care Trust. This gives directly employed public sector staff
the opportunity for partnership and collaborative working.
31. Turok, I (2007) Delivering Full Employment:
Challenges Facing Cities, Presentation to CLG/DWP
worklessness conference, Manchester April 2007.
32. Whitfield, D. (2006), Modernisation by
Marketisation: how the commissioning, choice,
competition and contestability agenda threatened
25
public services – the lessons for Europe, London:
Spokesman Books
A recent report from The Work Foundation (January 2007)33 found that three-quarters
of public sector employers have initiatives and policies in place addressing work-life
balance issues, which includes flexible working, job sharing, home working, term-time
contracts, career breaks, childcare provision and time off to care for sick children.
Example: Promoting work/life balance in
employment
The 5 Partners NHS Trust
The 5 Partners NHS Trust provides mental health services
across Halton, Knowsley, St Helens, Warrington and Wigan
& Leigh. The Trust is committed to Improving Working Lives
of its staff and provides a range of childcare facilities, flexible
working options, various staff benefits including childcare
vouchers, subsidised school holiday play schemes, support
during maternity leave, paternity leave, information about
careers and statutory rights including flexible working and
general information of benefit to staff with and without
caring responsibilities. The Trust has its own staff work-life
balance newsletter called ‘The Juggler’ which is packed with
information about staff benefits and work-life balance.
Better skills of public sector workers also impact on the local economy and makes
areas more attractive for regional, national and international investment. Strong skills
and training programmes provided by the public sector can also provide transfer options if employees move into the private sector or work in partnership with private
organisations.
(f) Emerging themes and issues
This chapter of the report sets out what in our view are the main strategic advantages
offered by direct public employment. These advantages are of vital importance in
ensuring that the public sector can respond to the rapid changes taking place in our
society and economy. Some of the emerging themes and issues arising in relation to
the importance of direct public sector employment are that it is:
• One of the principal levers by which public bodies can have a direct impact
upon the development of local economies – Public employment has a
catalytic impact on the local economy, providing stable and secure employment, and as a consequence spending which drives the local economy and
wider employment prospects.
• A means of co-ordinating and shaping the places in which we live and
work - Public employment can have positive economic, environmental and
social impacts and ensure that communities can thrive and prosper, reducing the impact of social exclusion and promoting stability.
• Providing the capacity and the means to intervene effectively at a local
level - It allows elected politicians to pursue clear policy objectives, manage
scarce resources, meet peaks and troughs in demand, join up local services
and hold service providers to account. Diminishing direct employment
reduces the scope for effective democratic intervention and direction in the
future delivery of public services.
• Vital to promoting equity and access to services – An overriding public
duty is to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws and practices in
employment and service delivery relating to gender, race, disability, sexual
orientation and age. Direct public employment can play an important role in
helping public authorities to fulfil their statutory and moral obligations and
in setting the highest standards for other employers and service providers.
• An effective method of regulating markets and controlling costs –
Traditionally direct public employment has been used to manage local
markets for goods, works and services and ensuring value for money for the
public purse. This is still a vitally important role in ensuring that the public
sector is not held hostage to the vagaries of the private sector market and
33. Visser, F. & Williams, L. (2007) Work-life balance
in the public sector: rhetoric vs. reality, The Work
Foundation
26
•
•
•
•
can exercise control over taxation and resource allocation without the need
for expensive contractual variations and remedies.
A means of securing effective democratic accountability and scrutiny –
Direct public employment offers clear lines of accountability and responsibility for the delivery of public services. It ensures that the public have a means
of redress when they are dissatisfied with services and can reduce blame
avoidance across networks of different providers.
A means of engaging and consulting with citizens and service users – Much
is made in modernising government of the need to consult and engage with
citizens and service users. Front-line public sector employees are a tailor
made resource to give effect to citizen engagement and empowerment.
Public employees should be seen as the principal means of engaging with
citizens and as a conduit for their views about quality, value for money and
the best methods of service delivery. Public employees should be trained
and empowered to be the eyes and ears of their communities.
An effective contributor to creating a workforce with the necessary skills
and training to deliver the high quality services and meet the wider needs
of the local economy in the long-term – Direct public employment can
contribute to the eradication of low skills, meeting the training needs of the
wider community and creating a flexible and responsive workforce. Directly
provided services have demonstrated an ability to respond to a rapidly
changing environment and to the modernisation agenda by integrating
service provision, upskilling the workforce and providing cost effective and
efficient services to the public.
A benchmark for ethical employment practices – Direct public employment can ensure effective regulation of the local labour market and of local
employment practices, in order to set the highest possible standards in
employment. This can include minimising exploitation and casualisation
of the workforce through adoption of fair wages and other employment
benefits. It also provides a significant contribution to solving longstanding
issues of ‘worklessness’ in some communities.
27
28
Towards a future for public
employment
We recognise that there is a plurality of service provision and forms of employment in
the modern public sector and that this can permit new and sometimes innovative approaches to public service delivery. However, it would in our view, be foolish for public
bodies to divest themselves of their employment responsibilities entirely and pursue a
purely enabling and commissioning role.
A significant core of all public services should be directly delivered to give both a
focus and purpose to the role of the public sector. In the previous chapter we have
attempted to put forward some strategic issues that should form the basis of a new
approach to public employment.
Where questions of trust arise, the positive role of public employment acts as an important counterpoint to the fragmented and increasingly market driven public sector.
In this we are not denying the option for other forms of employment in the delivery of
public services. However, what we are saying is that public services delivered through
direct public employment has an important strategic role and contains some core
public value features that should not be lost to the public sector as a whole. Indeed
that value is something that all public service providers and employers should strive
for.
Where do we go next?
The themes and issues set out in this report will be explored in more detail in subsequent research designed to consider the economic footprint of local government
and governance, neighbourhoods and service delivery. It will focus particularly on the
economic and social values relating to public sector employment. This will:
1. assess the governance and operational activities of the public sector within a
chosen neighbourhood.
2. calculate the total public sector spend in the chosen neighbourhood encompassing local authority departments, other public sector organisations, and
special initiatives.
3. assess the value of this spend on neighbourhood employment in direct,
indirect and induced terms.
4. assess the value of this employment for of the wider neighbourhood
economy and multiplier effects.
Recommendations
We have set out below a number of recommendations covering some of the main
issues that need to be considered by elected members, strategic managers and policy
makers, those responsible for commissioning services, regulatory bodies and the wider
community when decisions affecting the future of direct public employment are being taken.
1. Elected Members
Executive Councillors – need to consider:
• The contribution that direct public sector employment can make to meeting
the wider needs of the local economy and intervening effectively to drive
economic development and growth.
• How direct public sector employment can be best used to co-ordinate the
achievement of wider social and environmental outcomes including building
sustainable healthy communities and improving the quality of life in local
29
areas and neighbourhoods.
Non-Executive Councillors – need to consider:
• How they can effectively scrutinise the quality, costs and complexities of
contractual arrangements where there is no effective market regulator in the
form of direct public sector employment.
• The consequences to local democratic accountability and holding to account
all public service providers where there is a significant shift from direct
public employment to private sector and third sector employment.
2. Strategic managers and policy makers – need to consider:
• The contribution that direct public sector employment can make to building
sustainable communities, co-ordinating policy outcomes across a range of
local partners and achieving wider economic benefits for local communities.
• How the retention of core capacity can be used to support the community
leadership role of local authorities and other strategic public sector partners.
• For those working in an economic development role it is imperative that
decisions around local economic development consider how direct public
employment within their organisations, can assist in the development of
their economic strategies and how this relates to local multipliers.
3. Procurement and commissioning officers – need to consider:
• The role that direct public sector employment can play in effectively regulating local markets for goods, works and services and in minimising the
significant procurement and contract management costs of contracting out
activities.
• The potential impact on service continuity of contracting out and how you
can ensure access to core skills, experience and expertise without the retention of capacity through direct public employment.
• The impact upon the ability to retain, train and skill a local workforce to
meet longer-term needs of service provision and the local economy where
services are contracted out.
4. Local communities – need to consider:
• The impact of not having directly employed public servants upon local services and the ability for wider community participation and involvement in designing and delivering local services
• How they can ensure the accountability and contestability of local services
without direct public sector employment.
5. External regulators – need to consider:
• Whether public sector bodies can effectively discharge their public service
functions, provide value for money and be effectively accountable to
Government and audit and inspection, if they are not responsible through
direct public sector employment for significant aspects of local service
delivery.
30
Contact details
Association for Public Service Excellence
2nd Floor Washbrook House
Lancastrian Office Centre
Talbot Road , Old Trafford
Manchester M32 0FP
tel: 0161 772 1810
fax: 0161 772 1811
www.apse.org.uk
enquiries@apse.org.uk
Centre for Local Economic Strategies
Express Networks
1 George Leigh Street
Manchester M4 5DL
tel: 0161 236 7036
fax: 0161 236 1891
www.cles.org.uk
info@cles.org.uk
The Centre for Local Economic Strategies is a company limited by guarantee no. 4242937
with charitable status no. 1089503
Institute of Local Government Studies
School of Public Policy
University of Birmingham
Birmingham B15 2TT
tel: 44 (0)121 414 3953
fax: 44 (0)121 414 4989/3165
www.publicpolicy.bham.ac.uk/contact.htm
31
LOCAL SERVICES
LOCAL SOLUTIONS
PRICE
APSE Members £20.00
APSE Non-members £40.00
Association for Public Service Excellence
2nd floor Washbrook House
Talbot Road, Manchester M32 0FP
telephone: 0161 772 1810
fax: 0161 772 1811
32